IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (123 Date of Decision:10.03.2026 ANIL KUMAR AND ANOTHER … Petitioners Versus JASMER SINGH AND OTHERS ... Respondents -.-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Deepak Girotra, Advocate for the petitioners.

-.-

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, to assail the order dated 20.01.2026 (Annexure P-18) passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the applications dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure P-7) and 10.07.2025 (Annexure P-16) have been allowed in the pending appeal (Annexure P-3).

2. Succinctly stated, the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration along with consequential reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents. The said suit came to be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, whereby sale deed No.9073 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 was declared illegal, null and void, and the plaintiffs were declared owners of the suit property on the basis of sale deeds Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7. The defendants were further restrained from alienating the suit property, and defendant No.5 was directed to rectify the entry in the house-tax assessment register accordingly.

2.1. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No.1, 3 and 4 preferred separate appeals. However, respondent No.1 (defendant No.2 in the original suit) did not file any appeal against the decree. The appeal preferred by defendant No.3 was dismissed in default. Defendant No.1 also preferred an appeal wherein respondent No.1/defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte, and the said appeal was ultimately withdrawn by the appellant Randeep Mann vide order dated 08.08.2022. Consequently, the only surviving appeal remained the one filed by defendant No.4, who figures as respondent No.2 in the present revision petition.

2.2. In the said appeal as well, respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte owing to his non-appearance. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant Arun Goswami passed away during the COVID period, and initially none of his legal representatives came forward for impleadment.

2.3. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application seeking permission to contest the appeal along with a prayer for setting aside the ex-parte order, which application was allowed vide order dated 16.01.2024, thereby permitting him to participate in the appellate proceedings.

2.4. Subsequently, after the petitioners had filed their written arguments, respondent No.1 moved another application dated 03.07.2024 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), seeking his transposition as appellant in the pending appeal, primarily on the ground that the original appellant had died and his legal representatives had not come forward to prosecute the appeal. The petitioners opposed the said application by filing a written reply.

2.5. In the meantime, the legal representatives of the deceased appellant Arun Goswami filed two separate applications, one seeking their impleadment as legal representatives, and the other seeking withdrawal of the appeal. The application for impleadment was allowed. The said legal representatives thereafter filed their reply contesting the application filed by respondent No.1 seeking his transposition as appellant.

2.6. Respondent No.1 subsequently moved an application for recall of the order allowing impleadment, alleging that all the legal representatives of the deceased appellant had not been brought on record. Thereafter, the daughters of Arun Goswami filed another application seeking impleadment along with withdrawal of the appeal. The application for impleadment was allowed, and the said applicants made a joint statement dated 27.11.2024 expressing their intention to withdraw the appeal.

2.7. At this stage, respondent No.1 filed another application dated 10.07.